After the government of Gabon shut down his Me.ga domain, Kim Dotcom needed a new country to let him host the domain that will be home to the successor of file-sharing site Megaupload. That country will be New Zealand, as Dotcom is now the owner of Mega.co.nz. The exact same site that was originally hosted at Me.ga can now be found at the New Zealand domain.

On Twitter, Dotcom announced, “New Zealand will be the home of our new website: http://Mega.co.nz - Powered by legality and protected by the law.” When Gabon shut down Me.ga, Dotcom blamed “the reach of the US and Vivendi,” as the Me.ga domain was provided by Gabon Telecom, a subsidiary of the Vivendi entertainment company. Although New Zealand police raided Dotcom’s house 10 months ago because of criminal copyright charges filed against him in the US, he seems confident that New Zealand won’t shut down the domain itself.

Ultimately, getting a domain will probably be among the least challenging aspects of running Mega, which is expected to launch in January. But Dotcom has a plan for that, too. To avoid copyright charges, Dotcom promises that Mega “encrypts and decrypts your data transparently in your browser, on the fly,” and that the encryption keys are only controlled by the user, not Mega. To avoid the reach of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Dotcom plans to run his servers with hosting services outside the US.

Promoted Comments

The domain name is probably going to be less of a problem than the amount of storage used by all those encrypted files... i mean each copy of a movie or some such that is uploaded will be encrypted, and thus take up hard drive space, as opposed to how it was on Megaupload, where there was one file copy that was pointed to each time someone else uploaded that file...

I'd say that if he manages to get Mega up and running, his costs are going to be way higher than Megaupload. I'm not sure he can make a profit with that kind of system...

37 Reader Comments

Even though I would like to think these new changes would allow an operation like this not to be shut down by the US government, I still have a feeling someone will be pressured into being shutdown. Furthermore, if he is extradited this will probably not help him.

Anyway, this sounds like a good and useful service. One of my main concerns with using cloud data storage is that the way they are normally set up, and their terms of use, generally require me to relinquish some control and/or privacy. This encryption/decryption, with keys held by the user, appears to be a great solution.

I'm not sure which is the greater train-wreck: Watching the plot twists of Dotcom's ego thumbing it's nose at various governments much to the chagrin on the US and MPAA/RIAA or that whole shyster 'Lawyer who is not to be Named' bizarre public implosion?

Either way, personal opinions aside, it's like slowing down in traffic to rubberneck an accident scene. I'm not proud of it, but it's oddly captivating none the less.

Regardless of what you think about whether the ongoing case is right or wrong. Who would actually store their stuff on his new site? Unless you are actually a pirate or just quickly transferring one file to another person. If you are to believe Kim himself there is a witch hunt to bring him down. So can you really be surprised if its shut down a month from now? I wouldn't put a single important file on there, why risk it when there are a ton of other options that are not in the spot light.

I wouldn't be too sure that he's actually going to deliver. The guy has a history of making grand promises and not coming through.

AFAIK, Megaupload was his most successful venture, and it got started with little fanfare. (The musician ads came much later.) But the louder he announced something, the less came of it.

Not saying that proves it'll be like that this time - but it makes me a bit skeptical for the time being.

I'm pretty sure MegaUpload got popular because it was just outright better than most of the competing file hosts, who often you to wait two minutes and enter an unreadable captcha. Since they were shut down, that's essentially what we've come back to (although Rapidshare is now much more reasonable than it used to be.) If the code and hosting behind this site follows through I could see this as something of a game-changer in the market. Well, at least I'll be hopeful it is..

The domain name is probably going to be less of a problem than the amount of storage used by all those encrypted files... i mean each copy of a movie or some such that is uploaded will be encrypted, and thus take up hard drive space, as opposed to how it was on Megaupload, where there was one file copy that was pointed to each time someone else uploaded that file...

I'd say that if he manages to get Mega up and running, his costs are going to be way higher than Megaupload. I'm not sure he can make a profit with that kind of system...

It would probably help if this guy just stopped posting all over the internet about which apparent loopholes he was going to use, to help him/us circumvent Copyright laws or the reach of the RIAA/MPAA and "stick it to the man", full stop.

It always does. When the men with guns protecting the men in suitsjust have to write something on paper and the men with guns can comeget you. It'll happen. It always does. The system is designed to repressthe individual so that the men with suits and guns can continue their illegalactivity

I'm pretty sure MegaUpload got popular because it was just outright better than most of the competing file hosts

I'm not denying that, just saying that a lot of his career before MU consisted of generating attention and funding by announcing vaporware. He got big (no pun intended) in the dotcom boom (again, no pun intended) when VC was thrown at any idea with the word "Internet" in it.

So I'm just not sure if this new venture will be an actual functioning service like MU or just a return to his roots. (Same goes for his plans to build a broadband connection to NZ. Nice idea? Sure. Is he the guy who'll do it? Not so sure.)

"criminal copyright charges", that's just disgusting. Copyright, historically, has always been a civil matter. The idea of criminal copyright is as distasteful as Mr Dotcom himself. This entire thing seems like a massive overreach by the copyright holders, even though I don't agree with Kim Dotcom either.

The domain name is probably going to be less of a problem than the amount of storage used by all those encrypted files... i mean each copy of a movie or some such that is uploaded will be encrypted, and thus take up hard drive space, as opposed to how it was on Megaupload, where there was one file copy that was pointed to each time someone else uploaded that file...

I'd say that if he manages to get Mega up and running, his costs are going to be way higher than Megaupload. I'm not sure he can make a profit with that kind of system...

Encrypted files are only marginally larger than the original document/video/etc. Megaupload stored and served files on a per user-per upload basis. If two users uploaded the same file, they would both have their own individual link. An encryption based system wouldn't change the largest bottleneck in these types of sites: bandwidth.

It always does. When the men with guns protecting the men in suitsjust have to write something on paper and the men with guns can comeget you. It'll happen. It always does. The system is designed to repressthe individual so that the men with suits and guns can continue their illegalactivity

/angrylibertarianhatoff

There's truth in what you write. I hope you're wrong about the "dick-tripping" and the inevitability of the outcome though.

"criminal copyright charges", that's just disgusting. Copyright, historically, has always been a civil matter. The idea of criminal copyright is as distasteful as Mr Dotcom himself. This entire thing seems like a massive overreach by the copyright holders, even though I don't agree with Kim Dotcom either.

It was criminal copyright because he purposefully promoted copyright material, which is distribution and not just hosting.

The domain name is probably going to be less of a problem than the amount of storage used by all those encrypted files... i mean each copy of a movie or some such that is uploaded will be encrypted, and thus take up hard drive space, as opposed to how it was on Megaupload, where there was one file copy that was pointed to each time someone else uploaded that file...

I'd say that if he manages to get Mega up and running, his costs are going to be way higher than Megaupload. I'm not sure he can make a profit with that kind of system...

Well, you can do deduplication of encrypted data if you make the key be entirely dependent on the contents of the data (e.g. you use a hash of the contents as the key). That way, everyone who uploads a file can later download and decrypt the contents (since they know the hash of the contents), the server can keep a single copy of the data (as each user uploads the exact same ciphertext), but it's impossible for others (including the server) to determine what the contents are apart from guesswork.

The domain name is probably going to be less of a problem than the amount of storage used by all those encrypted files... i mean each copy of a movie or some such that is uploaded will be encrypted, and thus take up hard drive space, as opposed to how it was on Megaupload, where there was one file copy that was pointed to each time someone else uploaded that file...

I'd say that if he manages to get Mega up and running, his costs are going to be way higher than Megaupload. I'm not sure he can make a profit with that kind of system...

BackBlaze shows just how cheap storage can be done.I do think your correct in that it is going to be a good bit more expensive, but Still doable.

The domain name is probably going to be less of a problem than the amount of storage used by all those encrypted files... i mean each copy of a movie or some such that is uploaded will be encrypted, and thus take up hard drive space, as opposed to how it was on Megaupload, where there was one file copy that was pointed to each time someone else uploaded that file...

I'd say that if he manages to get Mega up and running, his costs are going to be way higher than Megaupload. I'm not sure he can make a profit with that kind of system...

Well, you can do deduplication of encrypted data if you make the key be entirely dependent on the contents of the data (e.g. you use a hash of the contents as the key). That way, everyone who uploads a file can later download and decrypt the contents (since they know the hash of the contents), the server can keep a single copy of the data (as each user uploads the exact same ciphertext), but it's impossible for others (including the server) to determine what the contents are apart from guesswork.

Great Idea! Didn't think of that! Using SHA/MD5 as the encryption key has the added benefit that you will know if your data arrived on the server intact. Creating checksums is pretty CPU intensive though, isn't it? And doing it in the browser via Javascript (since it it supposed to be encrypted on the fly by the client) might add additional overhead.

"criminal copyright charges", that's just disgusting. Copyright, historically, has always been a civil matter. The idea of criminal copyright is as distasteful as Mr Dotcom himself. This entire thing seems like a massive overreach by the copyright holders, even though I don't agree with Kim Dotcom either.

It was criminal copyright because he purposefully promoted copyright material, which is distribution and not just hosting.

And you certainly wouldn't mind sharing that evidence with us, which shows him "purposefully promoting copyright material", eh?

"criminal copyright charges", that's just disgusting. Copyright, historically, has always been a civil matter. The idea of criminal copyright is as distasteful as Mr Dotcom himself. This entire thing seems like a massive overreach by the copyright holders, even though I don't agree with Kim Dotcom either.

It was criminal copyright because he purposefully promoted copyright material, which is distribution and not just hosting.

And you certainly wouldn't mind sharing that evidence with us, which shows him "purposefully promoting copyright material", eh?

Sigh.

I think he means that was the allegation. If true, then because it was distribution it puts it into the criminal category.

For the standard downloader, its never going to be a criminal act, because as a general rule its not being done in a business like manner. The allegations against Dotcom are that they were being done as a business, and that changes things.

By saying that I'm not claiming he did or didnt, but if he's preyed on copyrighted materials with an intent to profit, then criminal allegations are correct. I personally think there was enough arms length from the users for safe harbor to apply.

He may have known in general that there was pirated material being hosted, but without breaching numerous privacy laws he couldnt have known a specific file was pirated or not. That should be enough to any neutral observer.

The domain name is probably going to be less of a problem than the amount of storage used by all those encrypted files... i mean each copy of a movie or some such that is uploaded will be encrypted, and thus take up hard drive space, as opposed to how it was on Megaupload, where there was one file copy that was pointed to each time someone else uploaded that file...

I'd say that if he manages to get Mega up and running, his costs are going to be way higher than Megaupload. I'm not sure he can make a profit with that kind of system...

I suspect the nature of how sharing works via the new site won't be much different than how it worked with Megaupload. Someone will upload a file, share the link, and others will download from the same copy of the file. The only difference now is that it's encrypted and the new site won't track the encryption keys. All it means is that the keys will need to be shared along with the link. This will provide the same functionality the old site provided but will remove Mega's ability to "peek" at the data being stored.